I tend to be pretty skeptical of judging figures from another time with our modern lens, since they lived in an entirely different world than we do. But you did a great job of providing enough context that this was a thoughtful and enlightening approach.
I appreciate you breakdown of the accusations made of Jung and your contextualizing of his positions. I find your approach and general withholding of judgment balanced and fair.
In my psychotherapist training at a school steeped in depth psychology, the only address of Jung's work emphasized these accusations against him. In class, many of peers were brought to tears asking why such a hateful person's work would be seen as a credible and continue to have influence.
Your article provides critical nuance to the debate of Jung's character and allows him to remain a complicated person around whom opinions can reasonably differ. In a period of heightened binary thinking that splits people in camps of wholly good or evil, it is important to remember that everyone is a product of their particular psychology and social moment. What matters (to me) is a demonstrated evolution in their thinking, and that a full canon of ideas need not be evaluated by its parts. See no one in only one light; show some grace to our ancestors; take what works, leave the rest.
I can easily see future generations condemning us for our failures to address climate change and the destruction wrought by American/Western empire; does that make contemporary strivings that fall short of these pressing issues contemptible? Isn't in the hope of our civilization that those who come after us progress beyond our commitments and biases and see our limitations, building off of us instead of renouncing us entirely?
This was a great article!
I tend to be pretty skeptical of judging figures from another time with our modern lens, since they lived in an entirely different world than we do. But you did a great job of providing enough context that this was a thoughtful and enlightening approach.
Great work!
I appreciate you breakdown of the accusations made of Jung and your contextualizing of his positions. I find your approach and general withholding of judgment balanced and fair.
In my psychotherapist training at a school steeped in depth psychology, the only address of Jung's work emphasized these accusations against him. In class, many of peers were brought to tears asking why such a hateful person's work would be seen as a credible and continue to have influence.
Your article provides critical nuance to the debate of Jung's character and allows him to remain a complicated person around whom opinions can reasonably differ. In a period of heightened binary thinking that splits people in camps of wholly good or evil, it is important to remember that everyone is a product of their particular psychology and social moment. What matters (to me) is a demonstrated evolution in their thinking, and that a full canon of ideas need not be evaluated by its parts. See no one in only one light; show some grace to our ancestors; take what works, leave the rest.
I can easily see future generations condemning us for our failures to address climate change and the destruction wrought by American/Western empire; does that make contemporary strivings that fall short of these pressing issues contemptible? Isn't in the hope of our civilization that those who come after us progress beyond our commitments and biases and see our limitations, building off of us instead of renouncing us entirely?
Your logic, terministic screen, suggests you have the problem, not Jung. What one dislikes in others, is actually the mirror of themselves.